ROTFLMAO!!!!! You Clinton apologists are really funny. Right............ All these women are just money grubbers. Bill Clinton was really telling the truth....

Where are all the "money grubbers" going after any and all Presidents? Where were they under Carter? Where were they under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Ford????????????????????

Here's a clue - maybe it's because CLINTON IS ACTUALLY GUILTY OF WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING HIM OF. Maybe since he was convicted for lying under oath and caught on audio tape with Gennifer Flowers telling her to lie to everyone about their affair...he might just be guilty.

The Clinton's are proven, convicted liars. Bill Clinton is an adulterer, and in my book that makes him a scum. The facts about them should be stated. Their misdeeds should be exposed. That does not mean I hate them - I just hate their actions when they are not honest or ethical.

Now get up off your knees and take Clinton's dogma out of your mouth.

Click to expand...

Your bias is showing all to clearly. Half the purported "facts" are subjective opinions of people paid to come forth. Follow the money as you folks are so fond of saying. Any time someone is paid to say things - anything they say is cast into doubt (in my mind).

Adultry is a matter between the adults involved - and quite frankly should have been kept that way. It has nothing to do with his ability to govern. Is he a womanizer? Of course. Is it good? Well, no - it's hell on his family. I would have divorced him but, that's just me. Is it critical to his ability to govern? I doubt it. I am not so naive as to expect lily white conduct of our leaders or care - as long as they can do the job. I would rather have that then a spotless politician who is incompetent.

The Clinton's are lying scum. This is not a comment on their actions but on their state of being.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! You Clinton apologists are really funny. Right............ All these women are just money grubbers. Bill Clinton was really telling the truth....

Where are all the "money grubbers" going after any and all Presidents? Where were they under Carter? Where were they under Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Ford????????????????????

Here's a clue - maybe it's because CLINTON IS ACTUALLY GUILTY OF WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING HIM OF. Maybe since he was convicted for lying under oath and caught on audio tape with Gennifer Flowers telling her to lie to everyone about their affair...he might just be guilty.

You people live a delusional fantasy world.

Click to expand...

Are you really this naive? We had a Republican led Congress with an agenda: get Clinton.

The sheer volume of money spent - for pathetically small results - should tell you that.

Since you like inconsistencies, here's one for you, in 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick changed her tune and told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped. Interesting, using the same logic you apply to the Foster case, the inconsistency automatically makes her a liar.

My intent is not to convict Bill Clinton in this thread. My intent is only to raise questions and show the proof that the previous investigations failed to acknowledge or address certain facts which demonstrate this was no suicide.

Do you think Clinton would submit to a lie detector test on the matter? Was he ever asked directly by ANYONE if he had anything to do with the deaths of Vince Foster or Jerry Parks?

Click to expand...

Who are you trying to fool? Using your own particular brand of circular reasoning, you've done everything but come out and scream Bill Clinton is a murderer.

Like many Clinton lovers, defenders and apologists, you refuse to view things in the context of "the Clintons are lying scum." And that is the truth. Bill Clinton is a convicted liar, and has been proven to be a liar numerous times. Anything he says should be questioned - and he was NEVER questioned about Vince Foster or Jerry Parks under oath.

Click to expand...

He lied about adultery, that makes him a potential murderer. Quite a leap, makes sense to me. Oh boy.

It is your opinion that "The ONLY REASON he was brought in was because the credibility of the FBI analysis and the Park Police analysis had been TOTALLY DESTROYED....

Click to expand...

No, it is the only logical reason - since it was done after the fact and since he has a conflict of interest. I'll explain further below.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that they raised some reasonable doubt and another expert was brought in to confirm or deny it?

Click to expand...

How could they view it as reasonable doubt? If they were viewing it as mere reasonable doubt - then they're refuting your original point that the FBI and Park Police were qualified and accurate. Why wasn't it good enough if those folks were alleged experts? Doesn't match.

And again, if there were reasonable doubts raised - there should be a specific description of just what those doubts were. So why, precisely, did they feel that the FBI agent and the Park Police officer's analysis were questionable?

And of course - none of the experts in the FBI, the Park Police, or the outside expert they brought in could POSSIBLY be correct....

Click to expand...

Straw Man. The Park Police officer was not a qualified or certified handwriting expert. Now, he could be right, but since he had no professional qualifications or legitimate training in the field, it would be less likely. The FBI agent was only basically qualified, and violated standard handwriting analysis procedures, not only of the profession in general, BUT OF THE FBI'S OWN PROCEDURES. He could be right also, but since he made a critical error in judgment in the analysis itself, such is highly unlikely.

You see why you're such a disingenuous, lying fraud? You desperately want to mischaracterize all of this to protect your lover Clinton.

If you read the report you will see it specifically addresses some anomolies (which I presume were anomolies brought up by your 3 expert s) and concludes that they are normal variations.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the three reports of the first group of experts, you will see that they are far more detailed and address many more anomalies than your expert chose to. They explain their findings in specific detail as well, and the note as well as other Foster handwriting samples are their to back up their conclusions. Again, your expert has a conflict of interest in the matter and there is no attempt by him to explain why his report differs so greatly with 3 other experts who equal or exceed his qualifications in the matter. Again, all 3 investigations chose to simply ignore their analysis.

Well, there is no issue with the credentials or credibility of the other experts either. So what?

Click to expand...

So now you have 3 to 1. You have 75% saying forgery versus 25% non-forgery. That means you start a murder investigation and since Foster was involved with Whitewater and stated "It's a can of worms you don't want to open," and since numerous files were being stolen from Vince Foster's office right after his death by people hired by the Clinton's, and since Clinton fired the FBI director the day before Foster died - YOU PURSUE BILL CLINTON AS YOUR PRIMARY SUSPECT and question him under oath and ask him to take a lie detector test.

You're exposing your Clinton-hater credentials here.

Click to expand...

I don't hate the Clintons. The only thing being exposed in this thread is your great love of the Clintons - and your desperate need to defend them for 19+ pages. If it's such a "wacky conspiracy theory" in your opinion, just let it go. What's the big deal? Why are you vehemently defending something you consider to be a crazy idea? What are you scared of, pup? LOL.

So, what you are saying is:

- if doubt is raised concerning an investigation and another expert is brought in to confirm or deny it - it's CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

- if that expert reaches a conclusion that is the same as the investigation's (not the government - the investigation - the "government" driving this investigation was the Republican dominated Congress that was hostile to Clinton and looking for impeachment or crimes - you keep forgetting that little fact) - then it's CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Click to expand...

Straw Men. Not the reasons I cited as conflict of interest. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

- and, if he is a former government employee - despite having been a credible expert witness in many different cases, despite impeccable credentials which you can't refute - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Click to expand...

Certainly. One may be expertly qualified and still have a conflict of interest in the matter.

Not if the Park Police officer and one FBI agent were correct. Which they could have been. You are poisoning the well here again.

Click to expand...

No. Again this is a Straw Man. The Park Police officer was not a qualified or certified handwriting expert. Now, he could be right, but since he had no professional qualifications or legitimate training in the field, it would be less likely. The FBI agent was only basically qualified, and violated standard handwriting analysis procedures, not only of the profession in general, BUT OF THE FBI'S OWN PROCEDURES. He could be right also, but since he made a critical error in judgment in the analysis itself, such is highly unlikely.

What proof - independent of a conspiracy website do you have that the FBI agent and the Park Police Officer were not fully qualified or for that matter, that only one FBI agent even examined the handwriting?

Click to expand...

The proof that this was reported in the media, as the source states, and the government never refuted it.

That is pure baloney - finding him guilty would have led to an impeachment and that is what they wanted. It would certainly not have destroyed the credibility of our government or electoral process any more then any of the other crimes and supposed crimes they were trying to pin on him.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A President found guilty of MURDER would have been devastating to the credibility of the government and the electoral process. That a murderer was elected as President equates to "no big deal"? You've got to be kidding...

So you admit that the inconsistencies I've pointed out in the Foster case are accuate... ROTFL. I love it!!!!

here's one for you, in 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick changed her tune and told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped. Interesting, using the same logic you apply to the Foster case, the inconsistency automatically makes her a liar.

Not until you consider the nature of rape and the fact that many women, due to overpowering guilt or shame, usually wait too long to report the crime, or change their story. It's an emotionally devastating event. There have been numerous anomalies involving the report of rape by women over the years.

I was addressing Popeye's naive implication that Clinton is not constantly pursuing women.

We had a Republican led Congress with an agenda: get Clinton.

Click to expand...

And the problem is THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A PERSON WHO HOLDS THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN THE WORLD. A person who can fire the head of the federal law enforcement office and put in his own appoitment. A person who can pardon himself from any crime. You're trying to make it out to be a very simple matter, and it's not...

Your bias is showing all too clearly. A desperate attempt to protect the politician that you love so dearly.

Click to expand...

Unlike you, I don't claim to be completely unbiased. As I outlined in a prior post, I think Clinton was a relatively decent president though we must wait for history to really make an accurate assessment.

So when are you going to stop pretending you are unbiased and objective?

Look at the Clintons' bank accounts...

Click to expand...

So, in other words, you only believe in following some money? Who paid for all these people to suddenly come forth? Who paid all their expenses? You don't find that in the least bit...odd? Of course not. Because your bias is set: he is guilty of everything alleged. Information to the contrary is disregarded. He may be guilty of somethings - certainly lying under oath but you are so set you even deny there was any sort of witchhunt.

Until they stop lying, they are liars. I wish they would stop, but I'll call them liars until they do.

I was addressing Popeye's naive implication that Clinton is not constantly pursuing women.

And the problem is THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A PERSON WHO HOLDS THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION IN THE WORLD. A person who can fire the head of the federal law enforcement office and put in his own appoitment. A person who can pardon himself from any crime. You're trying to make it out to be a very simple matter, and it's not...

Click to expand...

You are a bit misguided about how the government actually works. The Chief Executive's power is balanced by Congress and Judicial. After all, Congress brought Nixon to an accounting. That is it's job in part. You keep glossing over the fact that this was a very powerful, unified and hostile GoP Congress with a mandate: regime change and a contract with America. If they could have found him guilty of more then they did do you seriously doubt the wouldn't have? People tend to think the President is much more powerful then he is because he is one, clearly identified person, unlike Congress. But unless you have a Congress and a President that are very closely aligned - like the previous Congress and Bush, that is not often the case.

So you admit that the inconsistencies I've pointed out in the Foster case are accuate... ROTFL. I love it!!!!

Click to expand...

You'll jump on anything, in your attempt to further your case. Needing to do so, is indicative of how weak your argument really is, and that you're very much aware of it.

I should have said imagined inconsistencies, as opposed to the very real story changing by Broaddrick.

Not until you consider the nature of rape and the fact that many women, due to overpowering guilt or shame, usually wait too long to report the crime, or change their story. It's an emotionally devastating event. There have been numerous anomalies involving the report of rape by women over the years.

Click to expand...

That's a most convenient excuse. Unless you have some evidence, to automatically assume that it applies to Broaddrick, is making another giant leap.

In fact, almost all of your points, in regard to Bill Clinton, necessitate a suspension of logic and common sense, in order to make them, even the least bit, believable. This seems to be true of all conspiracy theories, as they can't stand close scrutiny, and are wholly unable to stand on their own.

You'll jump on anything, in your attempt to further your case. Needing to do so, is indicative of how weak your argument really is, and that you're very much aware of it.

I should have said imagined inconsistencies, as opposed to the very real story changing by Broaddrick.

That's a most convenient excuse. Unless you have some evidence, to automatically assume that it applies to Broaddrick, is making another giant leap.

In fact, almost all of your points, in regard to Bill Clinton, necessitate a suspension of logic and common sense, in order to make them, even the least bit, believable. This seems to be true of all conspiracy theories, as they can't stand close scrutiny, and are wholly unable to stand on their own.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find most of those women waited until enough money was offered to come "out" and claim "rape".

You are a bit misguided about how the government actually works. The Chief Executive's power is balanced by Congress and Judicial. After all, Congress brought Nixon to an accounting.

Click to expand...

I said you demonstrate your low level of intelligence constantly, and you keep proving me right... It's just pointless to try and talk any sense into you. One, because your love of Clinton is so great - not the man himself, but most of the political views he represents. Plus, you just don't want to see the Democrats damaged because of your hatred for Bush and the Republicans.

And two, because you believe you know what you're talking about, and you're clueless. Case in point, Congress ultimately didn't hold Nixon to task... He resigned to deny them impeachment. My point is that President's can thwart their will and stop criminal prosecutions. And Gerald Ford did just that by then pardoning Nixon so that Congress couldn't pursue him.

What would further investigations have uncovered? We'll never know... Nixon was pure authoritarian scum, so I have no doubt there were a lot of skeletons in his closet.